tv U.S. Senate CSPAN April 9, 2010 5:00pm-7:00pm EDT
♪ ♪ >> my name is aleczander reese. i am a 13 living in the citi of bend, oregon. i live in a neighborhood that most would be considered to be an average american neighborhood. three years ago when the houses in my neighborhood were for sale, there would be so many buyers that the house would sell for well over the asking price. people would literally fight to buy a house in my neighborhood. today, the same houses sit empty. foreclosure notices, rental size, and for sale signs replace e.r. doc rations. -- yard decorations.
>> when i moved here seven years ago my neighborhood was the best place in town for the holidays. at christmas almost every house was lit up, making it a magical place. now you are likely to see one house per street with christmas lights. or even a christmas tree in the window. it was also the best place to be for halloween. people all over band would bring kids here by the truckloads. my mom was usually go through five bags of candy and still have kids knocking. my neighborhood used to be full of kids and adults walking their dogs and playing. many have left in search of work or to live with relatives, or because they have lost their jobs and homes, most left have made cutbacks. many of my friends parents are hanging on by a thread working several jobs, or looking for
work and behind on the house payment. >> it will not peak until about 2011 or 2012. so we have a long way to go here. nor to what we're seeing right now is just the tip just the tip of the iceberg. >> one thing people forget to think about is how the challenge economy affects more than just adults. the homeless rid of kids is on the rise. according to kay tvc news the number of organ homeless students grew by more than 2000 last school year alone. the majority of these homeless students were enrolled in the elementary school level. in just the five years between 2003 and 2008, a number of homeless students had already increased by 10,000 students.
the federal government to find homeless students as those students who lack fix, regular and adequate nighttime residence. the federal program director says that this includes families that are doubled up, students living in shelters, hotels, motels, cars, or other outdoor areas, or with friends for one day or more during the school year. according to the band school website 37% of students enrolled in the school district receive free or reduced lunches in 2008. that number will most likely
increase as more families struggle to make ends meet, and more families rely on schools to help feed their hungry children. having proper clothing for students such as warm coats, hats and gloves is also a big issue living here in bend, where temperatures have already dropped into the negative teams this winter. people are finding it more and more difficult in the current economy to get their kids and their own basic needs met. these basic needs include shelter, food and clothing. i am just one boy and one town.
but this is america everywhere. >> to see all of the winning entries of this year's studentcam competition visit studentcam.org. >> let's make another winner from our c-span studentcam documentary competition. we asked students to give us a five to eight minute video on one of our country's greatest strengths or a significant challenge that our country is facing. today we meet aleczander reese from bend, oregon. he is in eighth grade. congratulations, aleczander. >> thanks. >> tell us, what was your video about? >> it's about how the economy is affecting children today spend how is affecting you in order to? >> well, it's making it harder for people to make ends meet, and it is making it so my
friends are working out -- moving away. so i don't have as many people to hang out with. >> why did you pick the subject? >> over the last year or so i noticed more houses going into so i decide to ask my friends and family about why, and they told me that the economy is starting, it is so poor and making it hard for people to make ends meet. >> what were your thoughts on your friends leaving your neighborhood? >> i thought it was pretty sad because, on norway on saturday mornings, my parents would get annoyed because they wouldn't get to sleep in because the doorbell would always be ringing. but now there's not like, there's not any people coming to the door. >> so was this an emotionally challenging subject for you to tackle? >> yeah, it was pretty challenging, finding about all the kids without proper clothing or shelter. >> is there anything you think the government can do to help this trend?
>> yeah. i'm very hopeful that the president is making plans to help keep people in their house. >> do you think there's something else they can focus on to help stop this trend? >> yeah. i think if people are to look at is a bit more, then maybe they could help to keep, to bring the economy back. >> how long did it take you to do this video? >> it took me about four days, because i had found out about right before the deadline. so luckily i fell on a short weekend, or i might -- borrowed my dad videocam and so i make this all the time. i knew how to run the software, and i was able to film the video and put it all together. >> congratulations on this win, aleczander, get. what we do with the money? >> i'm going to but most of it into college come into my savings account for college.
and i'm going to keep a little bit out for pocket money. >> thanks for joining us today. >> thanks. >> let's watch a little bit of alexander's video, "what you see, and what you don't." >> my neighborhood used to be full of neighborhoods. now there only a few of us left. many have left to search for work or to live with relatives. those left are feeling the effect of the economy pretty heavy and have made cutbacks. many of my friends parents are hanging by a thread working several jobs or looking for work and are behind on the house payment. >> alexander's entire documented and all of the winning videos, just go to studentcam.org.
>> too big to fail is a harder issue. my own view is that we are past the days of exclusively small, local-based banks and financial institutions. >> looking for more about the financial crisis? at the news the country c-span video library, you can't watch it, clipper, and share it. from yesterday, or 10 years ago. every c-span program since 1987. the c-span video library, cable's latest gift to america. >> now reaction to the new nuclear arms treaty with russia. public figures opposed to the back to form the new deterrent working group. they have this discussion thursday after the treaty signing. participants include former
director of the defense nuclear agency, as well as the top pentagon official in charge of international security policy during the reagan administration. this is an hour and 45 minutes. >> ladies and gentlemen, let me welcome you. we have a reason for getting started, even though i fear we may be still suffering a little bit from some of the vicissitudes of the bomb scare that a parent has been called in. i don't think it is in this complex otherwise we wouldn't be here. but someplace else in town, and i gather it is anything with transit. so people may be trickling in. and if they do i hope you will make accommodations for the. thank you all for getting your none the less. >> i am the present for security policy, and i'm delighted to be hosting this presentation by members of informal group we call the nuclear, the new deterrent working group.
some of the most distinguished and thoughtful practitioners of nuclear deterrence, i've had the privilege of knowing and working with over the past 30 some years. they are men and women who have personal experience with both the policy and the programmatic aspects of the issues or the top of our agenda today. as the president completes the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty with it signing in prague, and, of course, the nuclear posture review released on tuesday and the nuclear control summit next
week, and the nuclear nonproliferation review conference next month, and the the comprehensive test ban to the ratification debate living at some point down the road. so all of these are items that have been very much on our minds at the new deterrent working group. you have at your places a document we published about seven or eight months ago now i believe, that is a helpful, we hope, introduction to many of these issues. i suspect very few of you need an introduction, but we will nonetheless find that the ideas, the information, the quotes from some of our most distinguished and senior civilian and military leaders on the nuclear deterrent and what it takes to preserve it
will be further resource to you in enriching your understanding of these issues. above and beyond which will be going from this distinguished panel about today. i'm expecting momentarily congressman mike turner -- >> as i speak, yes or? >> is that congressman turner? >> yesterday. this is mike turner. our you did a? >> good. we may need to get a mic over to you. congressman, i was just about to say that we have bicameral sponsorship for this program. we had hoped to have senator jim demint whose office was kind enough to help arrange for us to have this wonderful facility. that was not possible, but congressman mike turner from ohio has been kind enough to join us by phone. and i think, as if on command,
he has done so. i know we don't have much time with you, congressman turner, but let me just say as the ranking republican on the strategic forces subcommittee of the house armed services committee, congressman turner is, i think, one of the most knowledgeable, certainly one of the most thoughtful and indisputably one of the most directly engaged legislators on either side of capitol hill, on the issues that we will be talking about today. and i know you're taking some time from your family to be with us, congressman turner, and i'm very grateful to you for which were doing when you're doing your day job, and especially spending time with us here when you're having some time off. if you can hear us and more to the point, if we can hear you, most especially, sir, if you will try to speak of it will help the audience hear what you have to say. can we just bring this mic over
there, do you think? would that be possible? there you go. a portable my, what a concept. congressman turner, can you hear is? >> yes, i can. >> go ahead. >> as you said, i'm on the campus of my university up with my daughter. we're doing campus visits with her being a senior but i do appreciate the invitation. and i also want to thank all of you for your thoughtful approach to really what are important issues honor national security. the issue of the, before us and, of course, s.t.a.r.t. bears the level of scrutiny that i know you all are going to get to it as how we best protect this country. i have some concerns about the president announcement on the limitations that are going to be stated in the mpt. and basically it's a unilateral action on behalf of the president, and part of my concern that i have is it goes
to the basis of the president has made this broad statement of a world without nuclear weapons, wanting to go to zero, and instead of being a human value statement, a broader statement for us all to embrace as a goal of humanity, it's a process where he is moving at how can he translate into actual u.s. policy and how does that then become a to do list for his. that's what we have to be concerned. each step along the way where there is a change in our nuclear policy isnal r what the next appleby. this will have some concerns that we should, that we should address. one of which the unilateral nature. we have got nothing for this. i mean, the administration prospectively indicating how they believe others will respond to it. without any real historical basis for. we have not seen the united states has decreased its arsenal, russia has decreased its arsenal. we have not seen an abandonment by foreign nations to seek
nuclear weapons and nuclear capability. so there's not a historical basis for the president saying this type of change that we would undertake will result in a safer world for us. the other issue is what this means that i think the president doesn't necessarily mean that he would not defend the united states with every available system that we have to the extent it would be necessary. to that extent, the foreign audience may find that the statement is received by them as meaningless, nations that don't know threat for the fact that we had a deterrence before and are not going to see a change. ever also have to focus on -- these are defensive weapons. we are talking about the threat to us. so i do have very, concerned about how this, what it does say and i do have some believe that it's not good to achieve the objective that the president has said that his goal.
>> thank you very much, congressman. the nuclear posture review is, of course, the focus of yesterday's attention. did you have any thoughts that you would like to share with us before we let you go on the strategic arms treaty signed today? >> yes. i think the missile defense aspect of it is something we should be concerned about. the russians are signaling that they believe the language is such that it is, where they're looking to perhaps limit the expansion of the united states in missile defense, the president saying of course it's not going to be something that will limit our, our pursuit of missile defense. that's an area where it appears to be a conflict, and, you know, one with the russians are already signaling they reserve the right to withdraw if missile
defense is big as a pursue. also we don't have the details of the administration as to how the agreement will be implemented, what will be the mixture, how will it affect the triad, what would be left. so i appreciate your review today of the nuclear posture review of the president's statement of limiting our role of the nuclear weapons and also your view today on s.t.a.r.t. >> thank you, sir. we look forward to sharing the fruits of this conversation. and thank you so much for taking time with us from family time and good luck with the college application process. >> thank you. >> let me now introduce in turn the folks who are going to join us. i'm going to say a few words, and turn it over to vice admiral robert monroe, retired. the former director on many other distinguished positions he
held in the navy and in the defense department. the former director of the defense nuclear agency. an agency that is no more, sadly, reflection i think of a lack of seriousness about the nuclear enterprise that has emerged since he left government service. bob is an expert among other things on the underpinnings of the nuclear deterrent, industrial technological scientific. and we will hear from him shortly about the sort of context in which our conversations are taking place today. we will then hear from my colleague, peter huessy, who is the president of geostrategic analysis that he is better known here in washington as the man who runs a marvelous breakfast for the national defense university foundation that are
really, among the most serious venues in washington for considering in hearing from those responsible for the strategy, the programs, policies affecting nuclear deterrence and missile defense and related issues. and starting next week, a plug-in for those breakfasts. if you haven't gotten listed up, sepia. we will then hear from paula desutter the honorable paula desutter, most recently served as the assistant secretary of state for the bureau of verification, compliance and implementation, a vital role in the past, and quite possibly will be an increasingly important one as we hear about some of the difficulties with verifying things like the s.t.a.r.t. tree, the company to test ban treaty, and other issues if you care to get into
for example, these arms control and the like. our cleanup batter will be admiral james a's lyons, former commander-in-chief, u.s. specifically. pacific fleet. united states navy retired. ace will be talking about about the perspective of a man with operational responsibilities in the united states military for our nuclear deterrence and ensuring that it is credible and potential implications for it no longer being seen as such. let me just say a couple of words by way of introduction to the topic. i had the privilege of serving president reagan in the defense department a long time ago. in a position that was then known as the deputy assistant secretary of defense for nuclear forces and arms control policy. i have some expense prior to that on the senate armed services committee staffing,
committee on the strategic forces subcommittee, and then finish up my time at the pentagon acting as the assistant secretary of defense with the responsibility for really the u.s.-soviet portfolio. so this is not only an application of the nuclear enterprise, as i say, something of a passion for me. and it troubles me personally and professionally that what i considered to be the most momentous national security decisions in memory, are being taken with so little public awareness, let alone inform debate. and the consequences of taking such momentous steps, without appropriate deliberation could be nothing short of catastrophic. and i use these terms and buys a
fully. we are for the first time in our history led by commander in chief who, not a place in a rhetorical sense that it would be desirable to live in a world without nuclear weapons, but who believes he can bring it about. and now he is of late taken to clarifying that that may not happen right away. it may not happen he said today in his lifetime, he nonetheless is changing american nuclear weapons policy and deterrent strategy and programs in ways that he explicitly says are designed to advance that goal. i believe the problem that arises from such course of action is that the president is
aggressively disarming the one nation in the world that he can disarm. that happens to be ours. at a moment when no other nuclear weapons state, or for that matter, any obvious nuclear wannabe state has the slightest evidence that they are going to follow his lead. to the contrary, every nuclear weapons state is modernizing its nuclear arsenal. they have high production lines to do so, something we do not. they have a skilled workforce to support that activity, something we increasingly do not. and my colleagues would elaborate on all of these points
with far greater expertise than i, but let me send the conclude by saying, the world will not be a safer place if the united states is perceived as having week, let alone mortally damaged its nuclear deterrent posture. and for reasons that william will be discussing with you today, i believe that is what is afoot. and we welcome the chance to discuss this with you to hopefully, through the miracle, of the television and the internet, media as well as through the good offices of those of you here, in form and catalyze the kind of debate that these momentous national security decisions demand, especially in this kind of a dangerous world. so with that, let me welcome
vice admiral robert monroe to pick up the baton and run with that. >> thank you, frank. and glad to be here this morning. thank you for coming. i believe this administration's nuclear weapons policy and programs are seriously misguided, and dangerously ill-advised. those of us who hold these views must speak out so mistakes can be corrected. i will limit my comments here today to four topics. first, a world without nuclear weapons is neither achievable nor desirable. second, d. evaluating nuclear weapons is exactly the wrong way to go. third, proliferation. the number one nuclear weapons
threat facing the world must be stopped. and forth, deterrence is a vital, but totally misunderstood. president obama has made a world without nuclear weapons a preeminent national goal. , but no one can describe how to get there. no one knows how to remain there. when nuclear weapons technology is widely understood, and fissile material will progressively become more available. and no one can imagine how to verify the absence of nuclear weapons in other states and organizations. now, it is highly advisable to establish a national goal without knowing how to need it. but it is even worse to launch
rapid far-reaching, unilateral disarmament actions to stimulate this goal. many actions being taken today are contrary to america's real needs. as far as the undesirability of nuclear disarmament, without strong responsible nuclear weapon states to maintain order, we would exist in a world of frequent nuclear detonatiodetonations by aggressors, rogue states, failed and failing states, fanatics, proxy organizations, terrorists, extortionists, criminals, even disaffected individuals. moving to my second topic, one
of president obama's principle initiatives is to devalue nuclear weapons. this also is highly counterproductive. nuclear weapons have repeatedly demonstrated their immense value to the world. they brought an end to the most destructive war in history, in the process, saving a million lives. for a half century thereafter, they prevented a much more devastating war. also during that cold war, nuclear weapons were a huge factor in preventing proliferation. even today, the presence of nuclear weapons in some hands is acting as a damper on their use by others.
also, by their very presence of nuclear weapons have banished large-scale conventional conflicts that killed tens of millions in the past. and for generations to come, nuclear weapons in the hands of responsible states are the only hope for the world. nuclear weapons should be awarded the nobel peace prize. on a practical level, nuclear weapons require the very best people america can produce, as laboratories, sciences, design engineers, military specialists, and operators. if nuclear weapons are vilified, which is in process, these exceptional people won't choose these careers, and results, honestly, will be catastrophic. and what a deterrence?
for deterrence to be effective, our adversary must be absolutely convinced of our capability and our will to use military force. d. evaluation destroys this image of firmness and strength. now let's consider proliferation. the most serious threat facing the world. for 20 years we have watched to broke straight -- states, iran and north korea, develop nuclear weapons capability. and we've not had the gumption to stop them. if these two states succeed, and they are very near it, their names in mideast come in the mideast and asia will hold nuclear in response. this will turn her a global cascade of proliferation. the resulting worldwide availability of nuclear weapons and fissile material will lead
to a world of nuclear horror and chaos from which there is no return. future historians will ask about us. how could they let this happen? what were they thinking? the message is clear. proliferation requires enforcement. there must be a cop on the beat. and as the world stands today, this responsibility falls on the united states. we must stop iran and north korea by military force if necessary. the nonproliferation treaty itself shows the way. the treaty create two tiers of state. five nuclear weapon states, and the remainder, now 184 states, without nuclear weapons. we are now advocating to
international pressure for nuclear disarmament, when we should instead be emphasizing the implicit responsibility of these five. collegiately if possible, separately if necessary, to police the treaty and prevent proliferation. lastly, let's move to deterrence. never have so many national leaders used the word so frequently without understanding it. deterrent is all about fear. in fact, that's the root of the word. we create the fear by making a threat. for example, in the case of iran, we threatened them as follows. it you do not dismantle your nuclear weapons facilities, we will do it with military force. always use the term military force. never mentioned nuclear weapons,
but never exclude them. we can convince iranian leaders, by a continuing series of major reinforcing actions, that we are prepared to do exactly what we say. we accelerate weapons procurement. we visibly, destroy targets. we intensified training, conduct major exercises, raise global alert levels, deploy forces to the adversaries area, raise global alert levels. and as a backdrop, we resumed underground nuclear testing. to reinforce our threat, we placed the nation on a wartime footing. this is deterrence. and it really works. the pay off is it orders are adversary behavior and it complies with our attitude -- complies with our aims.
deterrents isn't something you have, like nuclear weapons in storage sites. it's something you do. hundreds of major national actions must be taken to convinced the adversary that you are preparing to strike, and less a complies with your thre threat. and deterrence must be focus on a single adversary. a different strategy that works with state a isn't going to work on state be. in summary, it's 1938 for us. our chamberlain is so desirous of peace in our time that he doesn't remember the seven years of war, and 60 million dead that
1938 wishful thinking cost the world. thank you. >> bob, thank you very much. a sober and i think timely analysis. peter huessy, on the strategic arms reduction treaty, missile defense and related subjects. >> thank you, frank. it is a pleasure to be here. thank you very much. it's an honor to be here. i'm going to go through a number of issues. but let me start with the common house and npr 2001, by president bush, the 1994, president clinton and the 2010 by president obama. they both talked about reducing proliferation. the emphasis, particularly after 9/11, became reducing proliferation do not on terrorist groups but terror masters, particularly iran and austria. there was an emphasis on reducing instability meaning in a crisis no one is going to grab
for the nuclear pistol. the third commonality to reduce nuclear warheads and consistent with deterrent needs, expand the deficit-reduction threat reduction act and clean up loose nukes and loose nuclear material, both in the civilian sector and in the military sector, preserving nuclear triad, all they npr's do that. and we are not going to rule out going first, and when not going to be alert are weapons that although the three npr's had different illnesses, they all have those common things. what is new? in 2001, we had no deployed missile defenses. zero. in the united states. by the end of president bush's term, we're now approaching over 1000. president obama, contrary to what i would have expected, added 200 standard missile
interceptors to that number. unfortunately, he cut back our national missile defense in alaska and california, and canceled the polish interceptor site and the check writer. on the other hand, as ash carter and assisted missile defense is now front and center of american security policy. that is a common theme in the last two npr's, but it was not a major theme in the first npr. this administration has said over four years and want to lock down nuclear material. god bless and. i hope they can get there. it is an extraordinarily ambitious agenda. we have had bush under bush. would record amounts requested for the getter and lugar. it was approved by congress. that was increased again in 2007 and eight, and then again in this last budget. one of the programs begun under president bush was something that my friend madeline calls
megatons to megawatts. taking russian nuclear material and putting it in nuclear power plants and burning it so usually have taken nuclear weapons fuel and eliminated it. so i would caution people to say that this npr is somehow so totally new and so totally different anymore than the 2001 npr was a radical change from 1994. there have been changes to the world has changed. the second issue is complies. as paula will talk about, and my concern is how do determined that a country is compliant with a nonproliferation treaty so that they use biological weapons against us, we will not respond with nuclear weapons. as keith pain wrote today in the "washington times" in an e-mail that bill pointed out, a quick check will reveal that the npt compliance is determined by the ieee's board of governors a portrait of 35 states including russia, china, venezuela,
mongolia and cuba. and given the fact that complies is not a hard and fast rule. now, to be fair to the npr, there is a caveat, and the caveat is someone has to be fulfilling their obligations in general under nuclear disarmament. it's unclear they are. the reason i wear this is not a criticism of the administration, or my friends and administration, of which i have quite a few. but is to raise this is the issue this is going to be concerned with, and the house of representatives will be concerned with in dealing with the budget to fulfill the npr and the star treaty. the second issue, third issue is some people think numbers don't matter. as a general, the head of global strike command wrote in a paper, for the air force association, i think in the same our january, numbers do matter. and jim miller, good friend of mine who was the deputy undersecretary, speaking at my seminar series next thursday, said quote again in the paper today, that while the two
arsenals, talking about russia and united states, need not be equal come we simply a appropriate with respect to a particular deployed strategy systems especially to make sure that there aren't misperceptions, misunderstandings on either side, any sense of advantage or disadvantage. very, very important issue. critical, and i'm glad that jim raise that issue. the question then is, in my mind, does arms control have a strong connection to nonproliferation counter proliferation or the absence of proliferation? family security matters, i just finished a 10 part series on iran, part eight, nine in 10 have yet to be published with the first seven are on the. i have an entire eight singlespaced page paper on the connection between arms control and proliferation. i've been involved in arms control since i went to work for the regular decision in 1981. and i have to tell you that the
record is at best mixed, and at worst not very good in terms of we signed the imf treaty, the start one treaty and the start to treat a guy without a 1991, saddam hussein was six months to a year away from a nuclear weapon. we found the iranians in hindsight we now know to start a nuclear weapons program in 1988 or 19 a night and we know north korea started at the end of the cold war a nuclear weapons program in terms of diverting plutonium from their nuclear reactors and iaea said something fishy. and that eventually led to the agreed framework in 1995 under the clinton administration. so that isn't necessarily a strong correlation between arms control, however necessary and important and good arms control is, and what we called rogue states or terrorist or rogue state such as iran and north korea from either getting nuclear weapons or in the case of syria, trying to get nuclear weapons. when they used north korean technology, iranian money, and
they build a nuclear reactor, and we have to rely on our difference to the israelis come israelis, to take it out. similar to what the israelis did in iraq and they believe it was in 1981. so proliferation is the toughest problem this administration and any administration has, and i don't in the them, their job it is not a criticism to say it is a tough issue. and that gets to the point that i handed out today, which was identified by the president and his remarks this morning. and that is they have ended the trip with the russians. and that's the reset button. the problem is that the russians are busy making deals with venezuela to arm them. the russians are complicit in the iranian political program and their nuclear program. the russians also are not exactly being good neighbors with respect to our friends in ukraine and georgiou. and with respect to north korea. my view is come and this i think the administration is bent over backwards in terms of its
engagement policy and recent policy. it up to russia and china to step up, two-man out and come up on the front and do what they should have done long time ago under the terms of the npt, and that is stop assisting iran and north korea, build ballistic missiles or nuclear weapons. i can't say it any simpler than that. and as someone who has pushed very hard for the refined oil sanctions bill that is in congress, who has testified before 30 legislatures on domestic and has talked about stewart lee become a think as a national hero who should get a congressional medal of freedom, because of the work is done in terms of treasury taking money away from people as is now clear, if we do to the iran's central bank what we did to the north korean bank, we can bring down the regime in iran. mable people disagree with the there. i think we can. that to me is the test. and not the namby-pamby sanctions that we pass and they
we dilute, and then since 1986 would have the iran sanctions act. president clinton, president bush and the new president has not enforced sanctions against either american subsidiaries, american companies or foreign companies with respect to that bill. the power is there to do it and yet we haven't done it. and part of that is there are too many people that have vested interest in doing business with iran. as one of my family security pieces quoted in the headline was from the godfather, it's not personal, it's just a business. we can't afford that anymore in this day and age. this is to service an issue. so fundamentally, to wrap up, it preserves a triad, good. it says we're not going to get rid of no first use, make it ambiguous, good. we're not going to be learned. but. missile defense is front and center, good with a footnote, and this is what i want to end on.
medvedev said yesterday the united states is not to improve the capability number of our strategic missile defense. that to me means defenses against long range ballistic missiles, not just russia and china is necessary but iranian missiles that can reach the united states can or can't reach london. that is a 2800, or missile, maybe 3000. so that is worrisome in that the senate will have to do with. and so those are the issues that i would say are front and center with respect to the ratification process of the star treaty and the senate. >> thanks ramat. paula desutter, as i said, brings both from her days of the state departments and civil capacities, and her service here on permits select committee on intelligence, a wealth of knowledge about the larger question of nuclear weapons policy and strategy, but also verification and compliance with
treaties that seek to govern such activities. paula, welcome. [inaudible] >> it was on and i turned it off, good. first, you know, as those of us who are interested in all of these issues and trying to understand the obama nuclear policy, the posture review and the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty, would recognize it's been a busy week. and let me just say that among the top benefit that i see from all of this is that it has reduced the amount of time that networks have spent on tiger woods. [laughter] >> so we all have to find a silver lining. obviously, the nuclear posture review is just out two days ago. the stark treaty signed an estimated about what's in it, but i don't as i say here today, have a copy of it. so the way i wanted to discuss
this once to say there are a number, and i would highlight five, of very serious questions that congress and the american public need to try to find answers to. in the coming months as we address these problems. the first that admiral rove addressed was why global zero? second, what are the risk and consequences of the new negative security assurances contain any nuclear posture review. third, how well will the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty be verified. space policy or space treaties. and i will talk a little bit about challenges and verifying zero. what impact will the new s.t.a.r.t. treaty have on missile defense. i will address that only briefly. i think peter has done a good job on the. and, finally, the ultimate question has to be answered, is
will the policies and the new documents strengthen or weaken the u.s. nuclear deterrent and u.s. national security? having worked at the state department for an extended period of time, i know that one of the things that diplomats like is to make other countries like us and be nice to us. but that isn't always the primary purpose of our policies, and we have to say, does it strengthen or weaken national security. so turning to why -- why nuclear zero, one of the reasons that this is been advocated is the idea that the united states needs to take the lead, why are we the first to be pursuing it. and the rationale has been that it will have an impact on our ability to persuade countries like iran and north korea to give up their nuclear weapons program. so it is a valid question that
people need to ask. to what degree can that be true? i will answer that there is virtually no chance that will happen. but at least that has to be discussed and debated. also, the nuclear nonproliferation treaty, article six, calls for parties of the treaty to pursue negotiations in good faith on effective measures relating to cessation of the nuclear arms race at an early date and to nuclear disarmament. and on a treaty on general and complete disarmament, under strict and effective international control. so the context for the nuclear weapons state to disarm is in the context of complete and general disarmament. under effective control. now, is the obama administration saying, by its advocacy and policies in pursuit of zero, but
that is something that is in the offing? i would say probably know, but we had to ask that question. do we think of the world is about to disarm not just in nuclear weapons but every other weapon known to man. effective verification, now, verification and international control of a global zero would require all nations of the world to give up their national sovereignty. that's just the bottom line. you would have to, nor to the real confidence, you have to be able to look at every container to contain a nuclear weapon. some of those might be 50-gallon drums, and you have to be able to go everywhere. that kind of verification does not happen in sovereign states. finally, i would remind people,
when president reagan called for the end of nuclear weapons, which he did, he called for the end of nuclear weapons in the context of robust listed missile defense, and it was the missile defense that was supposed to render nuclear weapons obsolete. and so again, you get back to the missile defense question. i was very concerned about the impact of the negative security assurance. recall that the negative security assurance first came up during the clinton administration, that they specifically indicated that it wasn't just going to be retaliation for nuclear weapons use. it was held as a possible retaliation for use of biological or chemical weapons. so the question about the
nuclear posture, the u.s. will not use or threaten to use nuclear weapons against nonnuclear weapon states that are party to the npt and in compliance with her obligation. so the first question is should they retitled that section making the world safe for biological weapons used. and we've had event after event where people have said this is perhaps the greatest threat facing us. and i would only underscore that. i am glad that the administration exempted north korea and iran from that, because they are not in compliance with the npt. but what are the risks of telling countries like syria and a significant other in number of states with biological weapons programs that we have not yet found to be in noncompliance with the npt, that biological weapons used only will get a conventional response. the problem is that that could
very well mean the engagement of u.s. forces on the ground in that country, that is not always the way we want to be able to fight. it is, i would underscore, what peter said. it is very, very difficult to reach compliance judgment with regard to the nonproliferation treaty. when i started at state department in 2002, i actually brought on a couple of sharp lawyers, not to say that the rest of the voters in the state department aren't sharp, but any case i needed my own to try to do this work. it is correct and that the iaea board of governors can reach, but where the only country in the world who has done it. we are the only country in the world that has reached an independent judgment that iran
has violated the npt, but even though the united states has been saying for 20 years that we thought they were pursuing nuclear weapons capability, it wasn't until 2003, four -- five, that the nested finally reach that judgment. now, as difficult as it is, now the political pressure against reaching a compliance judgment about the npt is going to be even greater than it was. before it was just we will refer them to the security council. now, if you reach judgment that a country is in violation of the npt, you will be saying it is now permissible for the united states to retaliate against that particular country with a nuclear weapon. you have escalated the consequences of a compliance judgment. while not necessarily reducing
the risk that the biological weapons would be used. i also believe that the negative security assurances probably further incentivize proxy use of biological weapons. meaning a country like iran which has a biological weapons program, offensive, goodwill let hezbollah use of biological weapons, and yet that would necessarily triggered response. i also think that the justification for this in the npr was that these negative security assurances were okay because of the advent of conventional military preeminence by the u.s., and continued improvement in u.s. missile defense and capabilities to counter and mitigate the effects of cbw. . .
really bad shape. so is this treaty going to be accompanying by the represent plus up necessary to give us the and tm that we ought to have in order to get this. the administration said back last july that the verification measures were going to be an adapted from starts, adapted come a simplified and made less costly as a appropriate in comparison with the start one treaty measure sent from the start treaty but without saying what they are now intent is to make them less costly and less demanding. but at lower levels of weapons there verification becomes more important not less. the cheating becomes more
significant, not less. now, if you have a robust missile the lancet except more brisk so the question then goes back to to what degree are we going to emphasize and it really pushed corn and robust missile defense and have we given the russians by virtue of treaty and the toe of the deployment of missile the plants? it has all the appearances of all u.s. intercontinental ballistic missiles boeing to be taken out a, that's okay with me, i do think that's more stabilizing. but why aren't the russians called upon to do the same thing practice among other things if it's stabilizing for us it would be for them and it would help with verification. and so their vacation capabilities certainly will be scuba biased -- scrutinized.
certainly the last point is the current assistant secretary for verification compliance and communication, my successor, was the lead negotiator on the new start treaty. she was the same person who will be required to prepare a report for congress that says whether or not the treaty is effectively verifiable. could there be some conflict of interest in that? now, it's certainly true and your administration has gone and signed a treaty is not your favorite day at work when you have to tell them that it can't be effectively verified. i know, i had to do that on trees, it's not your best at work appear in, on the other hand, and that as your sole mission and then you're going to do that.
so there are some complex here and i will stop there and if you want to later we can talk about any of the other treaties that can be verified and. [laughter] >> something to look toward to appear in paula, they do as well as hear you captured a lot of the inside baseball quality of the challenges we are facing and thus an important dimension to the analysis. last and certainly not least, we have a distinguished naval officer and a four-star admiral who commanded he was telling me in his pacific fleet alone in a be larger than the what we're likely to have a in the years to, and he did so with distinction cap and over 30 years as -- a very distinguished
navy career, and has seen the threats of nuclear war up close and personal as they saying and has understood i think as well as any how important is the deterrent to those threats be kept credible and what it takes for the u.s. military to ensure that it's doing is part of that job. admiral ace lyons, welcome. >> thank you. now you have heard all the good points about the treaty, let me touch on a few concerns. [laughter] as an operational commander and my freedom of action was based on the confidence i have in the security and reliability of our strategic nuclear underpinnings, our allies counted on and and most importantly adversaries recognized and in part but bonds on what they can do appear in an
eye on or off? further we get greater contributions from our allies in a given situation because of the secure strategic umbrella guarantees. if our allies perceive a pull back on our capabilities, it is quite clear japan and other allies, south korea, taiwan may see a need to develop their own capabilities. in that sense i appeal to see how this treaty will enhance deterrence or stability. as i said that have a number of problems with the start treaty, many highlighted already. not the least of which there is no symmetry in the treaty. it does contain to the denuclearization of u.s. forces while the rest of the nuclear powers are modernizing their so. russia has embarked on an aggressive modernization program to field new weapons. its strategy is placed increased
reliance on its icbm and sea bass missile nuclear forces. these missiles most likely will be used. the trading confers real advantage to rush of the way i see at your and now cubs and missiles and deploy a strategic losses were have to destroy something on the order of 700. the house of this enhances our security is certainly unclear to me. and by 2015 and russia over how upgraded 80 percent of their long-range missiles. of course, with our financial health. for several thousand tactical nuclear weapons which are not addressed, i consider this a serious flaw. but what concerns me the most is the lack of consideration of what china is doing. aside from providing assistance
to the proliferation of nuclear technology to states like iran and korea, they have gone into developing a rapid modernization of their own nuclear force structure to include the development of four nuclear missiles, some of which most likely will be used and we also have to consider that have developed a fifth generation strategic bombers. i have built underground submarine pens on an island, both strategic and conventional attack submarines. the objective along with russia to our missile defense programs while at the same time they recently demonstrated their on a missile defense capability along with an anti satellite capability. what the treaty will do in the future with the development of a
future anti-ballistic missile capability is unclear at this time. with their double-digit increase with the last several years to their military budget, every weapons system china has developed is targeted against u.s. forces. their latest anti ship ballistic missile is specifically targeted against archery resources unit it's supposed to be an anti deny all or a no goes on a weapon. to counter that anti-ship ballistic missile. it primarily rests in our newly developed zulu class destroyer which has over $14 billion of research and development invested in it. it is dealt a, it can handle, it
has the growth potential, the cooling capabilities, all the power necessary to support future weapons systems, lasers, rail barons, x and sp and radars. in our wisdom we are building three. with no anti-ballistic missile capability. instead what we decided to do and this is critically important that the new role of the navy has been tasked with in our antiballistic misfile capability, what we have done i we've invested in a restart program to build a 30 year-old guided missile destroyers which have no growth potential and only the basic anti-ballistic missile capability. and by the way there is no cost
oversight or capability oversight on this program. everything is a shell game and much of the cost of this now program which is an order of $3 billion and 14 months behind schedule and how is being covered on the government furnished equipment the anti-ballistic missile, the ballistic missile agency been is fine and all the software of these upgrades. so i am not sure any of this will raise the level of comfort with our allies. in now, this is a program certainly from the standpoint of an anti ballistic capability that needs to be changed. let me just touch on the the hair trigger a lurch. much has been made about, let me just say we have a very reliable command and control system, and is secured, the procedures are
precise, they contested and tested and proved to be reliable here and i have total confidence in will be sold in the future. let me conclude by saying whether is no dr. strange love out there in the fleet and with that, frank, i will turn it back to you. >> thank you admiral. let me add one point to the observation that the admiral made about the implications of the start treaty for missile defense. i think several of us have noted this but i think it needs to be said very directly. the russians have put us on notice as recycling as this morning's press conference that they will regard any qualitative or quantitative change to america's missile defense capabilities as a basis for departing prime is treating -- i'm not even sure they qualified as strategic, i think he said the missile the lanston and.
we are in short now under i hope no ablution that at will the russians could simply say they are no longer conforming to this treaty and has several of us pointed out with their missiles, with their hot production lines for both missiles and nuclear weapons, if i have of finding and that is a big effort but if they have the funding or the will they could conceivably build substantially more nuclear-weapons then they're permitted to have under this treaty and we might find ourselves in a position where we have sighted the missile that we need nor the deterring capabilities that are appropriate and so without let's open up. thank you for your patience and hearing some of but i think very
thoughtful and important interventions from our panel and when you address yourself to us would you please identify yourself and the organization which pays you if any and all so if you have somebody like to answer your question directed to them, please,. >> [inaudible] >> could you identify yourself and who pays you? >> de france research foundation at the heritage foundation. thanks to everyone, i want to say that the issue today statements to sentences or three right before they sign the treaty statement, the treaty between the russian federation and the u.s. and the reduction a limitation of strategic offensive arms can only operate and be valuable only if a u.s. refrains from developing its missile plants capability is
we are having fun. i will do anything to know it's -- that you are on board. i am exciting about wearing this. >> that's great. morgan comes up with bacchae ideas. that may be the best yet. >> it's about the camaraderie of the club. i don't remember this club laughing and feeling that closeness. this team has been able to do that. >> ben graham, great to have you with us. look forward to your contradictions as we talk about the nationals. we want to get your take on the
acceptance or the lack of acceptance of harris' job and guzman. they are not going to be playing on an every day basis. >> it's going to be different in right field than what we have seen. it's a miss and match process. guzman is the wild card here and so far they have been happy how he's accepted it and playing out there. he made a nice catch the other night. he looked okay so far. we might see him this weekend. starting in right field. it's going to be a i-- playing match-ups. they feel they can get enough from that position with the guys they have. and whatever they get offensively is a bonus. it's going to be going from one
guy to the next. >> you think it will be a hot hand. it's going tabeadiest to get all three of those guys enough at bats. >> yeah it is. the thing with morris and harris, you could put those guys in other spots if you need to do that. the key in right field is like you said, match-ups, it's going to be when they have a left handed pitchers, you will see morris and harris on some nights and that's going to depend on who is pitching for the nationals. morris won't get tested that much with a pitcher that pitches ground balls. >> thank you very much.
you can catch ben graham on massive sports.com. jim has a tough job when you talk about harris' home run yesterday, gauze montriple yesterday. they won't want to play. you were a manager. >> i was. you need to have guys that can play both sides of the ball and hit right and left handed pitching. i could not play part time. i didn't have enough at bats to stay sharp. right handed pitches kept me on left handed pitching because you keep the shoulder in. i don't see how they are going to be able to do that. i don't know. somebody is going to win that job avenchially. i think willie harris will get most of the time.
>> jim has a decision to make and he will make what he thinks is best. >> people weed themselves out. if tavares can hit playing every 5 days, great, but most people can't. how about josh against the mets, in particular pelfrey, 4 -- .412 batting average. derek mock will start for the nationals. we will come back and talk about both right handers when we continue.
mock tries to get the win for the nationals. >> he's going to win more than three years -- more than three games this year. mock has always been in mike's heart. good curve ball and he's a man that i think can win 15 games. pelfrey has struggled. 5 runs he gives up per outing. has a tendency to leave the ball out over the plate. >> pelfrey 10-12 last year. if you look at the numbers,
both guys want to see their numbers come down. >> garrett will. pelfrey, he just gets a lot of base hits. he gave un220 hits and only struck out 127. he should not have those type of stats. mock, last year, better on the road. let's go to beebee taylor before he takes the mound tonight. >> thank you very much garrett you are gearing up for your start for the season, what have you done to prepare? >> just, going over the hitters, they have a few new guys, i don't have much information on them. what i was doing in spring
training, attacking guys, and work ahead, let the defense work for me. like that's the same thing i want to do. you know, i feel like i am ready to go. >> you had a good start for the spring, do you feel like you can build off of that. >> i had good games in spring, couple games that i wasn't happy with. i got stressed out. my last outings i got 100 pitches, mmm i am ready and i am going to be ready when the lights turn on. >> you spent time last season in the bullpen, do you feel good about the fact you are in the rotation? >> i feel like, you know the whole time, of course, being a bullpen guy is, you know has a lot of -- there is a lot of pressure in those situations, a
lot to learn. i feel like being a starter works better for me. >> finally you have time -- split time between aaa and the big leagues, does that give you confidence. >> yell, yeah, i think the whole confidence part of it, i believe in what i do and it doesn't matter where i am at. it was a special experience this year to have opening day ceremonies. opening day here at national's park was a special experience. that was a dream come true for me. i really feel excited about it and looking forward to getting on the mound. >> the thing i like about mock
is he had good success against francoeur and david wright. you are going to see he is stuff. i think he's going to be a guy that is going to continue to build. 93-mile an our fast ball runs in. he has a hammer curve ball. it just goes away and fades. change up, there it is. when you talk about rhythmic, well balanced pitcher, mock does that. he can throw up in the strike zone as long as it's high. i like him, he throws too many pitches. example, when he throws first
pitch strike, hitters it.235. he has to get ahead of hitters. more than anybody. that brings his curve ball into play. >> when you look at pelfrey, he's a big pitcher. desmond hit two home runs against him. >> i saw him pitch at wichita state, i was out there and this kid was totally dominated. 95, 96 at that time. drafted, number one pick. tremendous arm, great promise. pitched well his first two years, last year fell apart. 10-12. just didn't walk anybody. 66 people in 184 innings, didn't strikeout anybody. they projected he would miss a
lot of bats. doesn't use his change up often. if you are going to throw everything hard, don't have anything to gear down to. >> i think national fans are saying, nice deal for the pirats. matt comes in yesterday, one solid inning. what an inning it was when we continue. geico's been saving people money on car insurance for over 70 years.
pirats let him go. >> i think he's been there 8 years, he had a .2 -- he saved 67 games, his last year there his e.r.a. wentp to .500 plus. when you are with an organization that long, it's best for everybody to move along. the difference is, mattie capsize 26 years old, dotell is 36. if you ask me, i don't know why they got rid of him. he did struggle last year. there were nights when he had light saids -- when he had lights out. but again you can't do it when
you have 2-1. he through a lot of pitches last year. he's young, 26 years old. some of the closers don't come in to their own till they are 29. >> let's hope he stays with the ball club a long time. >> capps didn't have a perfect spring training. once it is out of the way, it all starts for real when you get to opening day. >> spring training is spring training. you got to get the arm back in shape. today felt good. yesterday didn't. i came in and i think today was better. >> do you -- can you carry the momentum today. >> i hope so. i think we played well the first two nights. good ball club.
1-8 in their lineup. it's not a lineup you want to face every night. our offense shows we are going to score run. and starting pitchers give us 6 inning and we will nail it down. >> pole question, what impression -- what member of the national's bull pen impressed you most? you can log on to nasn.com to cast your votes. we will give you the results after the ball game tonight. who do you think? >> my opinion -- >> i know what you are going to say. >> tyler clipper. walker had a great outing. but clipper, when you are
looking that tape from last season, explosive fast ball. to be able to come in there with the game in balance and get through the middle of the lineup, nobody else has done that. he did it through the bottom part of the lineup. clipert through the ball well this season. >> if you are managing a ball club you would be telling the guys throw strikes. throw strikes on the first pitch. >> we have holes and leaks last year in the defense but it's better this year. you have to throw the ball over the plate. you always hear, strike zone. when you start people off with sliders, you miss. when you come in from the
bullpen as we did, burn net walked two guys. wasn't close. with that motion he has, you must throw strikes. you got to let the defense work for you, keep the ball down, your pitch count stays down. >> what kind of a lineup would the nationals put in the field tonight. we will check up lineups when we come back. g your baby back s four hours before you order them? it's all in the pepperation. for me, pepperation is about getting in early to smoke your ribs low and slow over pecan wood chips for a sweet, smoky flavor. then i triple-baste them till they're fall-off-the-bone tender. this is shiner bock barbecue sauce i'm using. come in now for baby back ribs. choose 1 of 10 freshly prepared entrées plus an appetizer for just $9.99. only at chili's. it's all in the pepperation.
pugod, core at streaked base, wright, bay, jacobson, francoeur, buross, tutodda, and pelfrey on the mound. career against nationals, .304 batting average. for the nats. rodriguez, 4-9 verse phillies, three-4 opening day, 19th opening day. morgan leads off; harris, zimmerman, adam, willingham, kennedy, rodriguez, desmond,
and mock against the new york mets, hitting .358 career against the mets. good lineup. batting cage. mike morris. take a look. kennedy. talking about the lineup. no question, morgueson the best leadoff hitting we have had. hares gets on base. zimmerman, willingham. i like they are at the bottom of the lineup. they are going to run pitch counts up. >> nationals trying to get the first one out of the way and games coming up tomorrow and sunday. you like playing in new york? >> i didn't like playing there as a visiter. that's our pro-game.